Catheter ablation for papillary muscle arrhythmias: A systematic review.
intracardiac echocardiography
irrigated ablation catheters
papillary muscle
ventricular arrhythmias
Journal
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE
ISSN: 1540-8159
Titre abrégé: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7803944
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2022
04 2022
Historique:
revised:
07
11
2021
received:
22
09
2021
accepted:
30
01
2022
pubmed:
12
2
2022
medline:
8
4
2022
entrez:
11
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Catheter ablation of papillary muscle ventricular arrhythmias (PM-VAs) has been associated with unsatisfactory results. Features that may affect acute and long-term procedural outcomes are not well established. To systematically review the available data in the literature assessing efficacy and safety of PM-VAs catheter ablation. An online search of PubMed, Cochrane Registry, Web of Science, Scopus and EMBASE libraries (from inception to March 1, 2021) was performed, in addition to manual screening. Twenty-one observational noncontrolled case-series were considered eligible for the systematic review, including 536 patients. Postero-medial PM harbored 60.8% of PM-VAs, while antero-lateral PM and right ventricular PMs 34.9% and 4.3% of cases, respectively. The mean acute success rate of the index ablation procedure was 88.1% (95% CI 82.8% to 91.9%, p < .001, I Catheter ablation is an effective and safe strategy for PM-VAs, with an acute success rate of 88.1%, a long-term success rate of 69.2%, with a relatively low procedural complication rate. The use of ICE, irrigated catheters and catheters with CFS capability was associated with higher rates of arrhythmia-freedom at long-term follow-up.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Catheter ablation of papillary muscle ventricular arrhythmias (PM-VAs) has been associated with unsatisfactory results. Features that may affect acute and long-term procedural outcomes are not well established.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the available data in the literature assessing efficacy and safety of PM-VAs catheter ablation.
METHODS
An online search of PubMed, Cochrane Registry, Web of Science, Scopus and EMBASE libraries (from inception to March 1, 2021) was performed, in addition to manual screening. Twenty-one observational noncontrolled case-series were considered eligible for the systematic review, including 536 patients.
RESULTS
Postero-medial PM harbored 60.8% of PM-VAs, while antero-lateral PM and right ventricular PMs 34.9% and 4.3% of cases, respectively. The mean acute success rate of the index ablation procedure was 88.1% (95% CI 82.8% to 91.9%, p < .001, I
CONCLUSIONS
Catheter ablation is an effective and safe strategy for PM-VAs, with an acute success rate of 88.1%, a long-term success rate of 69.2%, with a relatively low procedural complication rate. The use of ICE, irrigated catheters and catheters with CFS capability was associated with higher rates of arrhythmia-freedom at long-term follow-up.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35147225
doi: 10.1111/pace.14462
pmc: PMC9302647
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
519-531Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Heart Rhythm. 2020 Jan;17(1):e2-e154
pubmed: 31085023
Europace. 2018 May 1;20(suppl_2):ii5-ii10
pubmed: 29722854
Heart Rhythm. 2016 Jul;13(7):1431-40
pubmed: 27324561
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2018 Jul;41(7):750-758
pubmed: 29732567
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2015 Jun;8(3):616-24
pubmed: 25925230
Korean Circ J. 2013 Dec;43(12):811-8
pubmed: 24385992
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010 Mar;21(3):245-54
pubmed: 19817930
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2015 Jun;1(3):116-123
pubmed: 29759353
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2014 Nov;25(11):1158-64
pubmed: 24946987
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2020 Mar;57(2):207-218
pubmed: 31650457
Europace. 2018 Jun 1;20(6):1028-1034
pubmed: 28449078
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2015 Dec;1(6):509-516
pubmed: 29759404
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2011 Mar;39(2):91-2
pubmed: 21145753
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Oct 26;6(11):1381-1392
pubmed: 33121667
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2022 Apr;45(4):519-531
pubmed: 35147225
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2016 Apr;9(4):e003874
pubmed: 27069089
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2018 Jan;29(1):64-70
pubmed: 28884872
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2018 Dec;29(12):1654-1663
pubmed: 30106213
Int J Cardiol. 2016 Oct 1;220:876-82
pubmed: 27400187
Heart Rhythm. 2010 Nov;7(11):1654-9
pubmed: 20637311
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019 Jan;12(1):e007004
pubmed: 30636476
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2010 Jan;21(1):62-9
pubmed: 19793147
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2009 Aug;20(8):866-72
pubmed: 19298560
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019 Jun;30(6):827-835
pubmed: 30843306
Heart Rhythm. 2014 Apr;11(4):566-73
pubmed: 24398086
Heart Rhythm. 2017 Nov;14(11):1721-1728
pubmed: 28668624
Heart Rhythm. 2010 Jun;7(6):725-30
pubmed: 20206325
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2015 Feb;26(2):145-50
pubmed: 25229319
Heart Rhythm. 2008 Nov;5(11):1530-7
pubmed: 18984528
Europace. 2017 Jan;19(1):21-28
pubmed: 27485578
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2018 Jun;29(6):889-899
pubmed: 29537721
J Arrhythm. 2018 Nov 18;35(1):99-108
pubmed: 30805050
Cardiol Rev. 2015 May-Jun;23(3):135-41
pubmed: 25133468
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2008 Apr;1(1):23-9
pubmed: 19808390
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 May 6;51(18):1794-802
pubmed: 18452787